Situation Overview: European Migration Crisis

Transcription

1 Situation Overview: European Migration Crisis April 2016 INTRODUCTION Following the official closure of the Western Balkans migration route on 20 March, transit sites continued to record low numbers of irregular arrivals throughout the month of April. This situation overview outlines the changing migration trends, demographic profile and humanitarian needs of people in transit along the Western Balkans Corridor. In the course of the month, arrivals to Greek islands have continued with an average of 119 new arrivals per day. However, this figure represents an 86% decrease compared to the daily average in March of 870, showing the combined effect of more widespread knowledge of new restrictions and challenging weather conditions. 1 By the end of April, some 53,900 migrants were estimated to reside in Greece. Of these, 8,234 migrants remained in detention facilities on the islands, where they await the outcome of their asylum application or are preparing to be sent back under the EU-Turkey Plan. 2 As of 29 April, 387 migrants have been returned to Turkey under the EU-Turkey Plan. 3 Since March, the total number of migrants in both Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) has started to decline, while the number of asylum seekers in Hungary had increased from 1,218 in early April to 3,209 4 by the end of the month. In line with changing flows, the population of previously busy sites at entry points, such as the reception centre in Presevo, Serbia, has dropped considerably, while the concentration of migrants in other areas, such as Belgrade and at exit points along the Hungarian border, has increased. Findings are based on 149 group interviews in Serbia and FYROM, representing a total of 577 individuals. POPULATION PROFILE Of those, the majority were adults, predominantly aged between 18 and 45, while minors were present in 40% of interviewed groups travelling across the Western Balkans. Among adults, males were more common than females, particularly among those from Afghanistan, Iraq and North Africa, while the proportion of girls and boys was more balanced. Origin of displaced population Groups interviewed originated from Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and other countries, including Morocco, Iran, Somalia, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan and Yemen. The top three areas of origin of interviewed groups from Afghanistan were Kabul (23%), Kunduz (8%) and Herat (8%), while the remaining groups came from a variety of 1 UNHCR, Operations Cell Daily Report 29 April, 2 UNHCR, Daily map indicating capacity and occupancy (Governmental figures), 5 May download.php?id=1141 Figure 1: Migrant population by location in Serbia in April 2016 (source: UNHCR) destinations across the country. Of those travelling from Syria, the majority came from Aleppo, Homs and Dara. Smaller numbers reported they came from Damascus, Deir-ez-Zor and other locations. Groups travelling from Iraq reported originating from Kirkuk, Mosul and Basrah. Group composition Groups from Afghanistan contained the highest numbers of reported unaccompanied minors, accounting for 8% of interviewed groups. Men travelling without family members consisted of 9% of Afghan groups interviewed. The majority of groups interviewed were composed of families travelling with their immediate members (52%) as well as extended family members (15%). A smaller percentage were individuals travelling with friends from their place of origin (17%) and friends they met along the way (21%). Of the groups interviewed from Syria, the majority were comprised of nuclear families while a smaller percentage were friends travelling together who had met along the journey. Among Iraqis, families were also common, with almost three quarters of interviewed groups including either immediate or extended family members. Smaller proportions of interviewed Iraqis were travelling with friends from their area of origin. As observed in previous months, individuals 3 UNHCR, Operations Cell Daily Report 29 April, 4 A combined figure of number in Hungary as of 7 April and new arrivals as reported by IOM

2 METHODOLOGY Findings are drawn from primary data collected by REACH between 1 and 30 April Information was gathered through 149 structured interviews with groups of migrants at major transit points, in order to understand their demographic profile, displacement history, humanitarian needs and future intentions. Throughout this report, findings are complemented by data from regular monitoring of mainstream and social media, and other sources of humanitarian information. Findings are also complemented by interviews with operational NGOs in the Balkan corridor, and with data collected from Syria, the area of origin of the largest proportion of those in transit. LIMITATIONS Due to the purposive selection of groups for interview, results do not constitute a representative sample of all migrants travelling through Serbia at the time of assessment, rather, the information collected provides a snapshot of migration through a key transit country at a particular point in time, which is also indicative of wider trends. Alternative routes and experiences exist that are not represented in this study. travelling from other countries such as Iran, Morocco, Somalia as well as other North African countries were primarily males, travelling with friends from their area of origin (59%), while smaller proportions were travelling with friends they met along the way (20%). Unaccompanied or separated minors made up 4% of these groups. MIGRATION TO THE WESTERN BALKANS FROM COUNTRY OF ORIGIN All interviewed groups reported having transited through Turkey. Despite increased difficulties leaving Turkey, aid agencies report that a few dozen migrants continue to arrive in Serbia on a daily basis, having travelled from Turkey through irregular via Greece and FYROM, or increasingly, via Bulgaria. NGOs assisting migrants have reported that up to 80% of new arrivals to Serbia journeyed through Bulgaria. 5 IOM reported that as of 21 April, those detected/ apprehended by authorities upon entering Bulgaria illegally were from Iraq (50%), Syria (21%), and Afghanistan (21%). Figure 2: Age and sex of interviewed groups % 14% 9% 3% % 45% 24% 5% While some migrants contract smugglers to take them from their area of origin all the way to their intended destination, larger numbers appear to be arranging their journey one leg at a time, travelling through their own means where possible. The latter option, previously only necessary for many in order to complete the sea-crossing between Turkey and Greece, is less costly, but currently leaves migrants stranded in FYROM, Serbia and Hungary with no legal options for further migration. Some are applying for asylum as a means of extending their legal stay within the Balkans, hoping that the borders will reopen. Others use an asylum application to buy additional time while they explore alternative routes and link up with smugglers for subsequent legs of the journey. Media outlets report smugglers offering cross border transportation from Serbia to Hungary for a cost of between 900-1,200 Euros, figures that remain consistent with those advertised on social media. 6 EMERGING ROUTES From Afghanistan to Europe Smugglers in Afghanistan report that since 5 Die Presse, Flucht: Bulgarien wird zum neuen Einfallstor in die EU, 20 April aussenpolitik/ /bulgarien-wird-zum-neuen-einfallstorin-die-eu?_vl_backlink=/home/index.do UNHCR, Update on Population Outflows of Afghans To Neighboring Countries and Europe: A Qualitative Analysis of Recent Trends March 2016 news of the border closures in March, business has dropped by 50%. However, the proportion of nuclear families considering irregular travel versus young single men is reported to have increased, as families are considered to have a higher chance of crossing the borders than single men, an assumption that has been proven valid on the borders with Hungary. While the prices for travel from Afghanistan to Turkey, including visa, have dropped from 6,000USD to 4,000USD the cost of travel through Bulgaria has increased from 2,000USD to 5,000USD in recent weeks. 7 In addition, nearly 3.3% 8 of arrivals to Italy in March were from Afghanistan, representing a shift from none 9 in February and indicating that Afghans are beginning to look for alternative routes following the implementation of the EU- Turkey Plan. From Syria to Europe Alternative routes have emerged as reported by social and mainstream media as well as aid actors in North Africa. This includes Syrians travelling to Sudan, Mauritania and Mali hoping to join the migration flow in Libya and crossing via the southern Mediterranean route to Italy. 10 While only limited evidence had previsouly been available to show that Syrians were taking this 8 IOM, North Africa Mixed Migration Hub Survey Snapshot Italy, March UNHCR, Nationality of Arrivals to Greece, Italy and Spain Jan 2015 February 2016, mediterranean/download.php?id=927 2

3 Figure 3: Emerging smuggling routes 3

4 route, reports from Libyan authorities in April confirmed that Syrians were among those who perished while attempting to cross. 11 Alternative routes are on the increase. Among examples idenfitied are reports of Syrians travelling first to Brazil and on to French Guiana, where they apply for asylum, gaining permission to travel to France once their asylum applications have been successful. 12 From Greece to Central Europe Further movement by migrants stranded in Greece is relatively limited. Some have reached Serbia through clandestine routes, as was the case for several groups interviewed by REACH on the borders between Serbia and Hungary, who reportedly stayed in forests and hidden in bushes in FYROM for several weeks before making it to Serbia. Smugglers interviewed by journalists continue to promote the Greece-FYROM route, while others suggested that a new route through Albania could open up. However, this is considered to be a more difficult and less attractive journey to potential customers, as it would require more than 20 hours of travel by foot. 13 INTENDED DESTINATIONS As in previous months, the majority of groups interviewed in April (72%) indicated Germany as their preferred final destination with Sweden and Austria a close second (28%). The United Kingdom and France have seen an increase in preference from previous months. Almost half (47%) of migrants indicated that the presence of safety and security was their primary reason for choosing their final destination, while nearly 23% were motivated by the presence of family members already in their chosen destination country. The presence of other community members was also cited by 7% as a determining factor. HUMANITARIAN SITUATION AND NEEDS According to interviews conducted in Serbia and FYROM, migrants had been staying in transit sites and registration centres for an average of 8-10 weeks by the time of data collection. They can be roughly categorised into two groups that face differing situations and priority needs: first including those who arrived in their current location prior to the 20 March cut-off and continue to stay in official transit sites (stranded migrants); and second people who arrived more recently as well as those who are continuing to travel towards central Europe. Stranded migrants Migrants staying in the same location since the 20 March cut-off are generally travelling with more vulnerable family members, such as young children, and as a result are less able or willing to risk illegal border crossings. Following a lengthy stay in facilities originally designed for only a few days, conditions are rarely appropriate in terms of sanitation and privacy. However, the reduction of overall numbers in many transit sites, such as the Presevo reception centre, means that overcrowding has reduced compared to previous months and pressure on services and infrastructure has decreased. People on the move The second group includes new arrivals who are no longer travelling to transit sites or registration centres but instead are arriving in centralized transportation hubs like Belgrade. Here they commonly seek humanitarian assistance before continuing their journey to informal sites on the Hungarian border, where growing numbers coupled with a general lack of assistance have created a worsening humanitarian situation. Rapid Assessments conducted in April have shown that the ability of migrants to access humanitarian assistance within Belgrade is decreasing. 14 Asylum Info Centre (AIC) is now the only NGO able to provide accommodation to migrants in Belgrade following the demolition of No border hostel to make way for a new waterfront development project. 15 AIC now reports that they are receiving around 125 migrants during the day (1 out of 6 are children) and 80 per night (1 out of 4 are children), the majority from Afghanistan and Pakistan. 16 While migrants have been given the opportunity to seek shelter at the Krnjaca asylum centre, many do not, due to mistrust of authorities and a general lack of information. From Belgrade, growing numbers have travelled on to Subotica, and from here to exit points of Horgos and Kelebija on the border with Hungary. While up to 30 migrants were permitted to cross at each point on a daily basis, 17 the number of new arrivals outstripped the number of departures, causing numbers to increase quickly. Groups waiting at border points lack access to adequate shelter and sanitation facilities, and efforts by humanitarian actors to create shelters or provide toilets have been denied by authorities. Knowing no alternative options for legal onward travel, such challenging conditions do not appear to have deterred migrants from travelling to these transit points, although their exposure to protection and health concerns has increased over time. Asked to rank their immediate needs, migrants reported better shelters as their primary need followed by food and 10 OM, Mixed Migration HUB, March mixedmigrationhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/mhub- Trend-Bulletin-March pdf 11 IOM, IOM Investigates Fatal Migrant Shootings in Libya s Bani Walid, 29 April article/iom-investigates-fatal-migrant-shootin-1?utm_ campaign=it&utm_source=it-1-autotw&utm_medium=twitter-@ OximityMigrants&utm_term=articleId News Deeply, Finding Alternative Routes to Europe, 8 April finding-alternative-routes-to-europe/ 13 Wall Street Journal, Inside the Migrant-Smuggling Trade: Escapes Start at 1,000, 29 March com/articles/european-border-crackdown-kick-starts-migrantsmuggling-business REACH, Clearance of informal camp in Belgrade, 22 April 2016; REACH, Rapid Assessment: Belgrade and North Serbia, 2 May BalkansInsight, Refugee Centre Razed For Belgrade Waterfront, 27 April article/belgrade-s-refugee-aid-centre-demolished-for-belgradewaterfront #.vyhdwqkb_vm.twitter 16 Official communication by AIC in the Protection Working Group 28 April By the time of writing, this has reduced to 15 individuals per day. 4

5 H u n g a r y Kelebija Subotica Horgos Walk or taxi from Subotica to Horgos or Kelebija - 15 EUR per person for taxi C r o a t i a Taxi from Sid / Adasevci / Principovac - 40 EUR per person - 2 to 3 hours Taxi from Belgrade to Hungarian border - 50 EUR per person - 2 to 3 hours R o m a n i a Sid Principovac Adasevci ^ Belgrade Bus from Belgrade to Subotica - 10 EUR per person - 2 to 3 hours B o s n i a a n d H e r z e g o v i n a ^ Sarajevo S e r b i a Bulgarian border to Belgrade by taxi to 350 EUR per taxi (4 people) - 4 hours M o n t e n e g r o Presevo to Belgrade by taxi or train Taxi - 50 to 60 EUR per person - 4 to 5 hours Train - 13 EUR per person - 9 to 10 hours Dimitrovgrad Figure 4: Displacement routes in Serbia Podgorica ^ A l b a n i a K o s o v o Presevo F Y R o M ^ Sofia B u l g a r i a 5

6 access to showers and toilets By the time of data collection, many people had spent upwards of 20 days at informal transit sites in Horgos and Kelebija. Since border authorities have tended to prioritise the passage of Syrians and Iraqis over Afghans and other nationalities and families over men travelling alone, the latter have recorded some of the longest waiting times and are more likely to attempt to cross illegally either side of formal entry points. Protection concerns Risks to the protection and safety of migrants continue to be a cause for concern across the Western Balkans. The increased use of irregular routes puts migrants at heightened risk of abuse, particularly unaccompanied minors (the majority from Afghanistan) who were more likely than other demographic groups to report having experienced violence and abuse along the journey. At informal sites on the border with Hungary, women interviewed by REACH reported fears of SGBV. In particular, women expressed concern with the lack of sanitation facilities provided on the border which required them to relieve themselves in the bushes away from plain sight. However, the lighting in such areas is not sufficient and women reported that they were afraid of being attacked. Without permission to construct appropriate sanitation facilities, UNHCR has distributed whistles and flashlights as a precautionary measure, but this is clearly not a sustainable solution in the longer term. ASYLUM: PROCESS AND INTENTIONS Following implementation of the EU Turkey plan, applications for asylum have increased across the Western Balkans, due to migrants need to legalise their stay within the countries in which they are present and avoid deportation. Governments have responded by either amending or proposing amendments to existing asylum laws, having a knock-on effect on who is now eligible for asylum. FYROM For the nearly 575 migrants located in transit sites in Tabanovtse and Gevgelija, conditions remain difficult with rumours that increasing numbers of people are being deported. As of 26 April, people stating the intention to seek asylum in FYROM were sent to Vizbegov camp, north of Skopje, where approximately 75 asylum seekers were reportedly staying. Aside from the handful of families from Tabanovtse, most asylum seekers in Vizbegov are reportedly single men. Key informants explained that asylum applications are often motivated by a fear of deportation to Greece or Turkey, although very few mentioned that they intend to remain in the country long enough to witness the outcome of their application. For those that do, they may face unforeseen challenges related to recent amendments to the Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection. This amendment introduced new two restrictions: the first, related to family reunification, states that a refugee can exercise the right to family reunification only three years after asylum is granted. The second, broadens the safe third country definition, with a specification that an asylum claim submitted by a person who seeks to enter or has irregularly entered the territory of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from a safe EU Member State, a NATO member country, or a country which is a member of EFTA is considered to be unfounded, leaving these individuals at risk of deportation to Greece or Turkey. 18 Serbia Throughout April authorities have allowed migrants to stay in transit sites and registration centres without applying for asylum and provided them with humanitarian assistance and shelter. In late April, authorities began to request that migrants vacate parks in central Belgrade and were instead offered transport to the Krnjaca asylum centre. 19 Similar to the situation in FYROM, some migrants reported registering for asylum in order to legalise their stay, even if they do not intend to remain Hungary By the end of April, Hungarian authorities reported that around 2,000 migrants had crossed the border with from Serbia to Hungary, both through official border points and by illegal means. 20 Following the implementation of new asylum legislation on 1 August 2015, two transit zones were established close to the border with Serbia, where individuals can state their intention to seek asylum in offices in shipping containers. Asylum seekers must explain in writing to the Asylum Office why they did not seek asylum in Serbia (whether they actually applied or not does not matter) and are supposed to receive a decision on their claim within 8 days. Pending the outcome of their application for asylum, singles remain in the transit zones by the border, while families are transferred to one of the designated refugee camps in Bicske, Körmend, Fot and Vamosszabadi on the border with Austria, or Debrecen close to Romania. In these facilities asylum seekers are given shelter, food and a humanitarian residence card called a huma.tart. Singles can be legally detained in the transit zone for a maximum of 4 weeks, where they are reportedly supplied with food and water. After this period, unsuccessful applicants are deported while others are moved to other locations in the country. Entering Hungary at any other locations then a formal crossing point, i.e. through holes in the fence, is considered a crime and punishable by up to three years in prison and expulsion 18 UNHCR, Operations Daily Cell Report 15 April REACH, European Migration Crisis: Situation Update in Belgrade, Serbia, 22 April reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/ srb_situation_overview_clearance_of_informal_camp_in_ belgrade_22_april_2016.pdf 20 UNHCR-IOM briefing on the European Migration Situation, 27 April

7 from the country. 21 Those apprehended for illegally crossing into Hungary are able to express their wish to apply for asylum at the time of their court hearing. However, it is noted by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee that it is possible that those detained will remain imprisoned for the duration of their asylum procedure. CONCLUSION The dynamics of the migration in the Western Balkans is changing. During the early months of 2016 there was a formalised route from Greece towards central Europe, although increasing restrictions meant that some nationalities faced pushbacks along the way. Following the implementation of the EU-Turkey plan in March, borders have been effectively closed, leading to an overall decrease in the numbers of new arrivals but leaving a steady flow of people travelling through irregular means. Notably, April has seen a visible increase in numbers of groups travelling via irregular means from Bulgaria, and a decrease in new arrivals from FYROM. In addition, the reactivation of the route from Serbia to Hungary marks an important development, representing the only legal means of continuing their journey, both for migrants already in the Western Balkans prior to the implementation of the EU Turkey plan, and for new arrivals. On the whole, a significant increase in asylum applications has been recorded in countries along the Western Balkans Corridor. Faced with a lack of alternative forms of legal protection, migrants appear to be using the asylum process in non-eu countries as a means of legalising their extended stay and avoiding deportation, creating an unnecessary administrative burden and clogging the system for those asylum seekers who do intend to remain. Due to lengthy procedures, many people find alternative routes before their asylum applications are processed. In addition, despite changes to asylum laws in Austria and Hungary to make it increasingly difficult to qualify for asylum, migrants appear undeterred and continue to search for ways to reach their intended final destinations. For those stranded at points along the migration route, humanitarian conditions remain very challenging, particularly at the border between Serbia and Hungary, where numbers are continuing to grow, yet people lack access to basic shelter and sanitation facilities. Current figures indicate that they have been successful in crossing the Hungarian border, but many remain in asylum centres or detention without moving further along the route. 21 Daily News Hungary, Crossing Border Illegally becomes crime in Hungary, 15 September 2015, dailynewshungary.com/crossing-border-illegally-becomescrime-in-hungary/ About REACH Initiative REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: iraq@ reach-initiative.org or to our global office: geneva@reach-initiative.org. Visit and follow 7